Artificial cognition: How experimental psychology can help generate explainable artificial intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence powered by deep neural networks has reached a level of complexity where it can be difficult or impossible to express how a model makes its decisions. This black-box problem is especially concerning when the model makes decisions with consequences for human well-being. In response, an emerging field called explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to increase the interpretability, fairness, and transparency of machine learning. In this paper, we describe how cognitive psychologists can make contributions to XAI. The human mind is also a black box, and cognitive psychologists have over 150 years of experience modeling it through experimentation. We ought to translate the methods and rigor of cognitive psychology to the study of artificial black boxes in the service of explainability. We provide a review of XAI for psychologists, arguing that current methods possess a blind spot that can be complemented by the experimental cognitive tradition. We also provide a framework for research in XAI, highlight exemplary cases of experimentation within XAI inspired by psychological science, and provide a tutorial on experimenting with machines. We end by noting the advantages of an experimental approach and invite other psychologists to conduct research in this exciting new field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".